Get combat encounter

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by specifying the returned fields, including the nuance that actor values come from the game system adapter 'where there is one'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single focused sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then efficiently lists the key returned data. Every clause earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read operation with one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and strong read-only/idempotent annotations, the description provides everything an agent needs: what is read, what data comes back, and how to target a specific encounter. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit field enumeration.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single combatId parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the active-encounter fallback. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the complete schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one combat encounter'), then enumerates the exact contents returned: turn order, initiative, hidden/defeated flags, and current turn details. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list-combats (listing), create-combat, and change-combat-turn.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The context is clear: this is the read operation for a single combat encounter, and the optional combatId parameter points to list-combats as the source of the ID. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the read-only nature and sibling names make the usage boundaries reasonably obvious.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.